Don’t Shoot The Admiral!
“Dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer
de temps en temps un amiral pour
encourager les autres”. At least
that’s the explanation given to
Candide in Voltaire’s 1759 classic
satire for the execution by firing
squad of the Royal Navy’s Admiral
Byng. Having warned that he didn’t
have the resources to successfully
carry out the mission, Byng was
found guilty by court martial. The
Articles of War decreed one law
for all: the death penalty for any
officer of rank who did not do his
utmost against the enemy in battle
or pursuit. Thus, Byng was executed
in spite of pleas for clemency from
amongst others, the Lords of the
Admiralty. No exceptions.
Global Mobility professionals have for years
been grappling with policies and exceptions
(although admittedly few exception requests
I have seen have resulted in quite so dramatic
a conclusion!). In part, this has arguably often
been simply down to a steadfast adherence
to policy. As Dr. Pangloss remarks to Candide,
“things cannot be otherwise than they are;
for as all things have been created for some
end, they must necessarily be created for the
best end”. The policy is the policy. Everyone
gets the same. This allows us to forecast and
manage cost. No exceptions.
Many tenured Global Mobility professionals
will have witnessed over time not only an
evolution in the way in which exceptions and
exception approval processes are managed,
but also a plethora of techniques used to
discourage assignees from requesting policy
exceptions. The annualised, grossed-up figure,
the Global Mobility Manager or their RMC
representative tells the assignee, will need
to be approved by your Vice President. So is
your exception really necessary in the current
climate, given our well-publicised corporatewide cost saving target? The exception can
then be routed for approval through the use
of the latest Global Mobility technology
and costings revised for appropriate budget
forecasting. Exceptions can be tracked by
policy area, service, business unit and location.
They can be scrutinised to identify trends by
RMCs seeking to provide consultative valueadd and those within the organisation charged
with bringing down the cost of mobility. A
veritable cottage industry.
A one-size-fits-all (one law for all)
approach will inevitably bring with it a flurry
of exceptions because not every assignee is

16

the same. Questions therefore arise around
the flexibility of policy and the nomenclature
used to categorise exceptions. Let us firstly
deal with the latter.

Many tenured
Global Mobility
professionals will
have witnessed
over time not
only an evolution
in the way in
which exceptions
and exception
approval processes
are managed, but
also a plethora of
techniques used
to discourage
assignees from
requesting policy
exceptions
Assignees looking to ease their transition
into a new life in a new location whilst
doing their ‘utmost’ in their day-to-day
professional duties may require additional
days in temporary accommodation or an
additional day home search in a difficult
market. This type of need appears to be
less about making exceptions to a policy
but finding flexibility within the policy to
support personal circumstances. As opposed
to classifying these types of additional
expenditure as exceptions, it may be more

appropriate to classify them as deviations
to policy. For the sake of policy evolution,
there is still merit in tracking and reporting
on policy deviations but the idea of striking a
more conciliatory tone through the flexibility
of deviations targets meeting assignee needs
rather than salami-slicing mobility costs.
A well-structured framework of mobility
policies which incorporates some degree of
flexible elements can help negate the tensions
caused by an exception management process
and the cottage industry built up around it.
This topic has come to the fore once again
in Global Mobility circles and, a little bit like
a Rolling Stones tour; newcomers to the
industry aren’t the first generation of Global
Mobility professionals to have witnessed it.
So why has this concept re-emerged, why are
some organisations embracing it and why are
others more sceptical?

Why Provide Flexibility?

Globalisation has changed the way in which
human beings interact with the world.
Technology has brought information to our
fingertips. Employee attitudes towards work
and even nationality and citizenship are
changing. One Global Mobility professional
put it recently that “for younger generations
in the workplace, cash is king”. Equally,
employers’ expectations of employee skills,
global mind-set and mobility are changing.
There is increasingly a greater awareness
of the competitive advantages to
an organisation of a truly diversified
workforce and the benefits the varied
skills that this workforce can bring.
Through technology, organisations have
better data to work with and as a result a
clearer understanding of the make-up of
their current globally mobile workforce.
To address imbalances, organisations
are seeking ways outside of traditional
frameworks to make mobility appeal to
and work for a broader demographic.
More generally, we find that organisations
are talking with greater frequency and
enthusiasm about the assignee experience.
As one Global Mobility professional
remarked to us, “if an assignee has a cat
rather than a child, why should we not
give weight to the importance that it may
play in someone’s life?” In many industries
virtual working and remote working are
increasingly accepted as the norm, whereas
the emergence of the gig economy looks
ever more likely to become a new way of
working for significant sections of society. In
this context, many organisations are looking
at talent in a broader, more holistic context.
This means making an assessment of how